Justices face contentious issues in new term

Monday

Oct 7, 2013 at 12:01 AMOct 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is beginning a new term with controversial issues that offer the court's conservative majority the chance to move aggressively to undo limits on campaign contributions, undermine claims of discrimination in housing and mortgage lending, and allow for more government-sanctioned prayer.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is beginning a new term with controversial issues that offer the court’s conservative majority the chance to move aggressively to undo limits on campaign contributions, undermine claims of discrimination in housing and mortgage lending, and allow for more government-sanctioned prayer.

Assuming the government shutdown doesn’t get in their way, the justices also will deal with a case that goes to the heart of the partisan impasse in Washington: whether and when the president may use recess appointments to fill key positions without Senate confirmation.

There is a familiar ring to several cases the justices will take up during the new term that starts today.

The justices probably will decide in the fall whether to resolve competing lower-court decisions about the new health-care law’s requirement that employer-sponsored health plans include coverage of contraceptives.

An issue with a good chance to be heard involves the authority of police to search the contents of a cellphone found on someone they arrest.

Tuesday’s campaign-finance argument is the first major case on the calendar. The 5-4 decision in the 2010 Citizens United case allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums in support of or opposition to candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates.

The new case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, is a challenge to the overall limits on what an individual may give to candidates, political parties and political action committees in a two-year federal election cycle. The limits are $48,600 to candidates and $123,600 in total.

When the justices take up the president’s recess-appointment power under the Constitution, the court will review an appeals-court ruling that would end the president’s ability to make such appointments.